I am referring to an enviromental blog called the Environmental that I discovered by reading the very interesting blog of my class mate called Bul Media Blog.
There is a post that discusses whether we should underestimate global warming or not. I don't have a certain answer. The only thing I am sure about is that because our society discourse is controlled by people who make money out of polluting activities, the view we have is an underestimation of the whole matter.
Then the blog discusses the issue of cows meat, which is one of the primary sources of pollution. Nobody knows about it because big money come out of meat production. And probably nobody would pay attention to this information while listening because the rule of listening is that we listen only to information that seems to be advantageous for ourselves. This one is not very good. We would have to feel responsible for polluting the earth while eating beef if we paid attention to this information. I am afraid we should do it.
The fact that liteners listen only when information seem adavatageous for themselves make of them pray of speakers who use nice metaphors to make their own interests. And they do it by making their interests look like something that sounds good for the listeners, just as if they were making the listeners' interests. This is the key of advertisement.
We should stop doing it and listen only to things that look real, that sound moral and right.
AND THEN GO AND CHECK IT!
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Is the world real?
Our minds are so biased after all that hearing business men's talk that we ended up having ideas that fit their purposes very well.
Like, for example, after studying at school I ended up believing that reality does not exist. What? John Searle in his book "Language, mind and society" discusses this issue. These business men have managed to make us believe something so foolish as that reality does not exist and everything is realative...Oh my. I understand what is the purpose of this belief. It serves their interests very well: reality does not exist...then there is a soldier dying in Iraq, but there is not a soldier dying in Iraq...it is relative. What?
What is relative here is their discourse...their discourse is relative and biased and serves their own purposes...reality exists...They even managed to fuck up philosophy.
The same is true for moral relativity: it is unfair to kill but it is fair to kill sometimes. It depends. Hey! It does not depend at all!
Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Press Dinner (17 mins)
I knew all these things before growing up, they were obvious. Every child knows that reality exists and it is not fair to kill and that the king makes his own interests. And they knew them at Dante's time. But then all our culture was financed by business men and we ended up like that. Trapped in Matrix. Believing foolish things that go against our interests. My brother was killed...but it was not. It was unfair...but it depends.
The only thing that is not real is language.
I was in the newspaper today. I did not know before that I was a Spanish major and I don't remeber saying those things...but probably reality at that time was being relative and what is written on the newspaker is right. I should change my memory and conform it to what it is written there. I am a Spanish major and I said that the voices of Spanish people in the USA can be heard only if we are able to know about the facts. No...not even like that...I quote " It is important that our voices should be heard because there are things we need to know about"
You can imagine what I really said instead. I do not blame who wrote the article. What I said acquired a new meaning...or maybe no meaning at all when she tried to make my words fit her mental schemes.
This is a song I will give to my students. It is about real morality. The French singer Brassen's song Dom Juan criticizes our false sense of morality talking about a soldier that spares his enemy's life when he has been defeated. In this song De Andrè, an Italian singer, talks about the story of a soldier that decided to die not to shoot the enemy when he saw him, because he did not want to see the eyes of a man dying.
Songs like that cannot be found everywhere.
Expecially in Italy, where after Dante the whole litterature was sponsored by the rich and wealthy of the nation...and fosters this kind of distorted morality. And then we had Mafia. The climax.
In Naples now they ended up buying the toxic waste from the factories in the north or abroad and put them in the garden of common people who would accept to have them for a little money and then die of cancer. A big business..I can tell you. And I did not know anything about it before I saw the movie Gomorra, candidate to the Oscars this year. And the biggest dump of the region is just a few kilometers from my house.
I can tell you that that dump is real...
Like, for example, after studying at school I ended up believing that reality does not exist. What? John Searle in his book "Language, mind and society" discusses this issue. These business men have managed to make us believe something so foolish as that reality does not exist and everything is realative...Oh my. I understand what is the purpose of this belief. It serves their interests very well: reality does not exist...then there is a soldier dying in Iraq, but there is not a soldier dying in Iraq...it is relative. What?
What is relative here is their discourse...their discourse is relative and biased and serves their own purposes...reality exists...They even managed to fuck up philosophy.
The same is true for moral relativity: it is unfair to kill but it is fair to kill sometimes. It depends. Hey! It does not depend at all!
Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Press Dinner (17 mins)
I knew all these things before growing up, they were obvious. Every child knows that reality exists and it is not fair to kill and that the king makes his own interests. And they knew them at Dante's time. But then all our culture was financed by business men and we ended up like that. Trapped in Matrix. Believing foolish things that go against our interests. My brother was killed...but it was not. It was unfair...but it depends.
The only thing that is not real is language.
I was in the newspaper today. I did not know before that I was a Spanish major and I don't remeber saying those things...but probably reality at that time was being relative and what is written on the newspaker is right. I should change my memory and conform it to what it is written there. I am a Spanish major and I said that the voices of Spanish people in the USA can be heard only if we are able to know about the facts. No...not even like that...I quote " It is important that our voices should be heard because there are things we need to know about"
You can imagine what I really said instead. I do not blame who wrote the article. What I said acquired a new meaning...or maybe no meaning at all when she tried to make my words fit her mental schemes.
This is a song I will give to my students. It is about real morality. The French singer Brassen's song Dom Juan criticizes our false sense of morality talking about a soldier that spares his enemy's life when he has been defeated. In this song De Andrè, an Italian singer, talks about the story of a soldier that decided to die not to shoot the enemy when he saw him, because he did not want to see the eyes of a man dying.
Songs like that cannot be found everywhere.
Expecially in Italy, where after Dante the whole litterature was sponsored by the rich and wealthy of the nation...and fosters this kind of distorted morality. And then we had Mafia. The climax.
In Naples now they ended up buying the toxic waste from the factories in the north or abroad and put them in the garden of common people who would accept to have them for a little money and then die of cancer. A big business..I can tell you. And I did not know anything about it before I saw the movie Gomorra, candidate to the Oscars this year. And the biggest dump of the region is just a few kilometers from my house.
I can tell you that that dump is real...
American Democracy is not the Italian democracy
I am linking to an op-ed from the New York Times called Iraq Voted. Did Democracy Win?
Imagine I live in Iraq. I don't speak English. You come and tell me: "I want to give you Democracy". I see that you have good intentions and I learn the word giving to it a positive meaning. I don't really check its meaning on the dictionary to see what you want to give to me exactly. And I don't ask you to give me the exact definition. Words are there for this reason. Communicative economy. Saving the time and effort that would be needed to explain all the times something by giving its exact definition. And I am fucked!
Mirriam Webster's definition of democracy:
1 a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
Interesting is entry n. 3. And this is exactly the meaning of the word that is being exported. But the dictionary is not honest enough to tell you the truth.
What is being exported by the USA is a two-party system controlled by the richest people of the country, where people can only choose between two factions of the same party that makes the interests of the rich people.
The word 'democracy' is really misleading....as John Searle would put it.
Reading "Mind, Language and Society" by Searle I have noticed how many words have different meanings in American English and Italian. Demoracy, communism...and many others. When in Italy we will all speak English we will end up accepting the meaning these words have in American English. And what we will have in July will be Democracy in the American sense. Now I would define it as 'una dittatura', a 'dicatorship'. Because the Italian system is far more democratic, allowing different parties to be elected...even those who are closer to the interests of the people...
Then when we will learn Chinese the word communism will be used to decribe 'capitalismo', because what they have there is not very different from what they have in the USA. My Chinese flatmate is a shopaholic.
What was also intersting in Searle's book was the analysis of the word money.
Money at the beginning meant 'piece of paper that stands for a fixed amount of gold". Unfortunately we will still consider our money to have the same meaning. The truth is that the name has remained, but the thing has changed. Nowadays money is subjected to inflation and deflation, those processes used by the governments to abuse the private property of the people. Here in the States, where private property is so important, nobody complains that at the moment the state is printing money causing its value to decrease and taking away the private property of the people? No, because nobody questions the meaning of the word money.
Things change, words stay the same. This is how people are fooled.
Imagine I live in Iraq. I don't speak English. You come and tell me: "I want to give you Democracy". I see that you have good intentions and I learn the word giving to it a positive meaning. I don't really check its meaning on the dictionary to see what you want to give to me exactly. And I don't ask you to give me the exact definition. Words are there for this reason. Communicative economy. Saving the time and effort that would be needed to explain all the times something by giving its exact definition. And I am fucked!
Mirriam Webster's definition of democracy:
1 a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
Interesting is entry n. 3. And this is exactly the meaning of the word that is being exported. But the dictionary is not honest enough to tell you the truth.
What is being exported by the USA is a two-party system controlled by the richest people of the country, where people can only choose between two factions of the same party that makes the interests of the rich people.
The word 'democracy' is really misleading....as John Searle would put it.
Reading "Mind, Language and Society" by Searle I have noticed how many words have different meanings in American English and Italian. Demoracy, communism...and many others. When in Italy we will all speak English we will end up accepting the meaning these words have in American English. And what we will have in July will be Democracy in the American sense. Now I would define it as 'una dittatura', a 'dicatorship'. Because the Italian system is far more democratic, allowing different parties to be elected...even those who are closer to the interests of the people...
Then when we will learn Chinese the word communism will be used to decribe 'capitalismo', because what they have there is not very different from what they have in the USA. My Chinese flatmate is a shopaholic.
What was also intersting in Searle's book was the analysis of the word money.
Money at the beginning meant 'piece of paper that stands for a fixed amount of gold". Unfortunately we will still consider our money to have the same meaning. The truth is that the name has remained, but the thing has changed. Nowadays money is subjected to inflation and deflation, those processes used by the governments to abuse the private property of the people. Here in the States, where private property is so important, nobody complains that at the moment the state is printing money causing its value to decrease and taking away the private property of the people? No, because nobody questions the meaning of the word money.
Things change, words stay the same. This is how people are fooled.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Madame Bovary
How come that it took me one year in the USA, plus attending classes in politics and reading books in linguistics to understand what Madame Bovary was all about? This society we are living in has made me be very very dumb.
When I studied it at high school it was presented to me like a book written by an emmbittered man, who was living alone in a house and had nothing to do but writing a novel about a woman who cheats on her husband. So when I had to choose a topic for my final dissertation for my second BA in French Litterature I went for it. And I decided to deal with the central chapter, where Emma is seduced by a kind of Don Juan during a political rally.
I would have never immagined that Flaubert was describing exactly what is happening in our society...just like George Orwell in '1984'.
The whole story is that in France the industrial middle class, just like in the USA the Northern countries with the Civil war, was trying to get the power. In 1848 they organised riots involving the whole population to send away the king. Then they did not know what to do with the rest of the population, that expected changes. So they decided to fool them by introducing democracy. What they did was allowing everyone to go and vote for their representatives, but these representatives had to be rich middle class people who had to make the interests of rich middle class people anyway. And they sent people to speak to the peasants in the countryside. The speeches they gave are reported by Flaubert in his book.
They convinced the peasants that 'security' was their interest. To keep thier private property safe. This made sense to the people but they did not realise that security was the richest classes interest, not theirs. Because if they accepted this idea they would be sure to keep their donkey and their small house, whereas the rich would be sure to keep all the money that they had, continuing to exploit the peasants who would work to produce food for them for little money. The peasants interest should have been to ask the rich to make the system fairer and to get more money for their hard work. They should have questioned the concept of 'security'.
The concept is the same here in the USA: the poorest people vote Conservative because they are easily manipulated and are made to believe that it is right if there are no taxes. In this was they keep their few money but they don't get any access to education or health care and their children stay poor anyway. They don't understand that if they paid a small amount of taxes the rich would pay a lot of taxes and they could not but benefit from it. In Europe this concept is pretty clear to everyone. But here the wealthy of the nation have managed to create a system where they make believe the people anything they want by using the mass media.
What happened in France was that the first elections with universal suffrage ended up with the whole population voting to restore the empire. And this is what will happen in Italy in July: the whole population will vote to get a two-party system, like in the USA and UK, because Berlusconi is manipulating them with his TVs. This means that they would not have the communist party anymore, which is the only one that, by getting the 3 or 4 per cent, represents more or less the interests of the majority of the population (it is pretty logical!). Only having this small party makes it possible to journalists who are in favour of the people and against Berlusconi to speak in the public TV. Once it will be no longer possible people will stop having any information which goes against the interests of rich people.
To make Italy like the USA is dangerous because there are not enough money and I am not sure if the rich American people who are behind Obama (USA controls Italy after the II WW ) will allow Berlusconi to do it. Despite the constant moaning and begging Berlusconi is doing...I bet he calls them everyday...
Any system of this kind, where the rich have all the power and resources, has had to resort to get money from external sources to keep a kind of balance: see Hitler's expansionism, or Stalin's (what a rip-off was that!) or the USA, or Napoleon III in France at Falubert's times. They had to invade other coutries to get more money so that the rich could get richer without making the poor starve.
Going back to Madame Bovary: Flaubert wanted to show how the rich people were seducing the poor people to make them make the interests of rich people. And he compared the politician speaking to the people to a man who is seducing a woman just to sleep with her by convincing her that happiness is to cheat on one's husband and being immoral is a matter of freedom.
This is another key point. The politicians were saying to the peasants: Progress is the key for happiness! Go and get rich! (sounds like Stalin..sic) To educate people to immorality and to stimulate in them constant desire for improvement is another key to make the system work.
For example let's say that Napoleon III wanted to make a lot of money by invading foreign countries or that Berlusconi wants to make a lot of money by doing things which should be considered immoral and unaccpetable like lying or bribing people. A good way of making people accept this it to make them believe that it is in their interest that the system is like that, because in that way they are allowed too to do immoral things. And they foolishly believe it, without realising that in this way they are allowed to make 30 euros by cheating, and Berlusconi is allowed to make 4 billions by taking them away from the rest of the population. What people do not understand is that if they were living in a communist country like Cuba they would be just as poor as they are now, but rich people would be poorer, they would not pollute the environment and the world would be better.
Instead they are made believe, like Madame Bovary, that happiness lies in constant desire for improvement and they struggle to get more and more money, that they end up spending in things they don't need but that they are made to believe they need by advertisment. Like a big house. They indebt themselves like Madame Bovary and then they are not able to repay the debts (this is what happened here with subprimes). They do not realise that the system is made so that they cannot get as rich as rich people, because education is private and the access to important positions is limited to people who are already rich.
So people are constantly unhappy, trying always to make more and more money. And they want to keep the system like that, hoping that one day they'll dream will make true.
According to Orwell this also leads to being unable to feel any kind of pleasure, including sexual one. Because pleasure is not possible while being in constant desire.
Now I believe that this capitalist system is very wrong because it keeps poor people as poor as they would be in Cuba, but allows rich people to to things that are highly dangerous for the future of humanity. But people don't understand it and go on leading their unhappy lives, constantly striving for improvement.
This is probably because people are naturally cooperative when they listen and they naturally try to fool the others when they speak. So there will always be speakers who will make listeners go against thier own interests...What a foolish species are we!
When I studied it at high school it was presented to me like a book written by an emmbittered man, who was living alone in a house and had nothing to do but writing a novel about a woman who cheats on her husband. So when I had to choose a topic for my final dissertation for my second BA in French Litterature I went for it. And I decided to deal with the central chapter, where Emma is seduced by a kind of Don Juan during a political rally.
I would have never immagined that Flaubert was describing exactly what is happening in our society...just like George Orwell in '1984'.
The whole story is that in France the industrial middle class, just like in the USA the Northern countries with the Civil war, was trying to get the power. In 1848 they organised riots involving the whole population to send away the king. Then they did not know what to do with the rest of the population, that expected changes. So they decided to fool them by introducing democracy. What they did was allowing everyone to go and vote for their representatives, but these representatives had to be rich middle class people who had to make the interests of rich middle class people anyway. And they sent people to speak to the peasants in the countryside. The speeches they gave are reported by Flaubert in his book.
They convinced the peasants that 'security' was their interest. To keep thier private property safe. This made sense to the people but they did not realise that security was the richest classes interest, not theirs. Because if they accepted this idea they would be sure to keep their donkey and their small house, whereas the rich would be sure to keep all the money that they had, continuing to exploit the peasants who would work to produce food for them for little money. The peasants interest should have been to ask the rich to make the system fairer and to get more money for their hard work. They should have questioned the concept of 'security'.
The concept is the same here in the USA: the poorest people vote Conservative because they are easily manipulated and are made to believe that it is right if there are no taxes. In this was they keep their few money but they don't get any access to education or health care and their children stay poor anyway. They don't understand that if they paid a small amount of taxes the rich would pay a lot of taxes and they could not but benefit from it. In Europe this concept is pretty clear to everyone. But here the wealthy of the nation have managed to create a system where they make believe the people anything they want by using the mass media.
What happened in France was that the first elections with universal suffrage ended up with the whole population voting to restore the empire. And this is what will happen in Italy in July: the whole population will vote to get a two-party system, like in the USA and UK, because Berlusconi is manipulating them with his TVs. This means that they would not have the communist party anymore, which is the only one that, by getting the 3 or 4 per cent, represents more or less the interests of the majority of the population (it is pretty logical!). Only having this small party makes it possible to journalists who are in favour of the people and against Berlusconi to speak in the public TV. Once it will be no longer possible people will stop having any information which goes against the interests of rich people.
To make Italy like the USA is dangerous because there are not enough money and I am not sure if the rich American people who are behind Obama (USA controls Italy after the II WW ) will allow Berlusconi to do it. Despite the constant moaning and begging Berlusconi is doing...I bet he calls them everyday...
Any system of this kind, where the rich have all the power and resources, has had to resort to get money from external sources to keep a kind of balance: see Hitler's expansionism, or Stalin's (what a rip-off was that!) or the USA, or Napoleon III in France at Falubert's times. They had to invade other coutries to get more money so that the rich could get richer without making the poor starve.
Going back to Madame Bovary: Flaubert wanted to show how the rich people were seducing the poor people to make them make the interests of rich people. And he compared the politician speaking to the people to a man who is seducing a woman just to sleep with her by convincing her that happiness is to cheat on one's husband and being immoral is a matter of freedom.
This is another key point. The politicians were saying to the peasants: Progress is the key for happiness! Go and get rich! (sounds like Stalin..sic) To educate people to immorality and to stimulate in them constant desire for improvement is another key to make the system work.
For example let's say that Napoleon III wanted to make a lot of money by invading foreign countries or that Berlusconi wants to make a lot of money by doing things which should be considered immoral and unaccpetable like lying or bribing people. A good way of making people accept this it to make them believe that it is in their interest that the system is like that, because in that way they are allowed too to do immoral things. And they foolishly believe it, without realising that in this way they are allowed to make 30 euros by cheating, and Berlusconi is allowed to make 4 billions by taking them away from the rest of the population. What people do not understand is that if they were living in a communist country like Cuba they would be just as poor as they are now, but rich people would be poorer, they would not pollute the environment and the world would be better.
Instead they are made believe, like Madame Bovary, that happiness lies in constant desire for improvement and they struggle to get more and more money, that they end up spending in things they don't need but that they are made to believe they need by advertisment. Like a big house. They indebt themselves like Madame Bovary and then they are not able to repay the debts (this is what happened here with subprimes). They do not realise that the system is made so that they cannot get as rich as rich people, because education is private and the access to important positions is limited to people who are already rich.
So people are constantly unhappy, trying always to make more and more money. And they want to keep the system like that, hoping that one day they'll dream will make true.
According to Orwell this also leads to being unable to feel any kind of pleasure, including sexual one. Because pleasure is not possible while being in constant desire.
Now I believe that this capitalist system is very wrong because it keeps poor people as poor as they would be in Cuba, but allows rich people to to things that are highly dangerous for the future of humanity. But people don't understand it and go on leading their unhappy lives, constantly striving for improvement.
This is probably because people are naturally cooperative when they listen and they naturally try to fool the others when they speak. So there will always be speakers who will make listeners go against thier own interests...What a foolish species are we!
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
On our mental schemes
I have never really understood what Derrida meant when he said that our minds are full of schemes that give us a completely distorted view of the world and that we should try to deconstruct for our own good. Until yesterday. When I could see deconstruction put into action. And I laughed and laughed...you cannot even imagine how much I laughed.
I went to see a conference on Cuba (held by the famous professor from Stanford University, James Cockcroft) at Ramapo and then we watched a movie.
Fresa y chocolate.
This movie shows the way Cuban people consider American and European people. There is a young man who is 'normal', a 'revolucionario', while the other one is a Cuban too but because he is homosexual he has ended up conforming to the stereotypes they have in Cuba about people in capitalist countries. Because he is homosexual, he identifies himself with the stereotypes they have in Cuba about people living in capitalist countries:
- he is homosexual like capitalists, who have no moral values and are all homosexuals
- he drinks tea like English people and not coffee like Cubans
- he has American newspapers all over his flat
- he likes litterature and art, all things that Cubans avoid because they are all capitalist propaganda
- he drinks and amokes
- he does not do voluntary work
- and....the funniest thing ever...HE IS RELIGIOUS...he has statues of Jesus everywhere.
During the movie they get to know each other better and the 'real Cuban' learns to accept the other one. They get rid of the stereotypes and become best friends. Both love their country very much, but they simply have different sexual orientations.
And now in Cuba they are trying to get rid of the stereotypes about western people and they are more open towards homosexuals and religious people because they found out that it has nothing to do with betraying the revolution...
But the same opening is not always true on the other side...as the movie Good night and Good luck shows: some American people still consider being communist an accusation, something negative.
What really made me laugh was crosses and statues of Jesus everywhere in the flat of the homosexual guy as a symbol of capitalism...while singers such as Woody Guthrie (that I got to know on Friday during the show at the Berrie Center at Ramapo) would identify Jesus with ideas which are just the opposite.
And all this shows that also my stereotypes about American people were not quite right.
I went to see a conference on Cuba (held by the famous professor from Stanford University, James Cockcroft) at Ramapo and then we watched a movie.
Fresa y chocolate.
This movie shows the way Cuban people consider American and European people. There is a young man who is 'normal', a 'revolucionario', while the other one is a Cuban too but because he is homosexual he has ended up conforming to the stereotypes they have in Cuba about people in capitalist countries. Because he is homosexual, he identifies himself with the stereotypes they have in Cuba about people living in capitalist countries:
- he is homosexual like capitalists, who have no moral values and are all homosexuals
- he drinks tea like English people and not coffee like Cubans
- he has American newspapers all over his flat
- he likes litterature and art, all things that Cubans avoid because they are all capitalist propaganda
- he drinks and amokes
- he does not do voluntary work
- and....the funniest thing ever...HE IS RELIGIOUS...he has statues of Jesus everywhere.
During the movie they get to know each other better and the 'real Cuban' learns to accept the other one. They get rid of the stereotypes and become best friends. Both love their country very much, but they simply have different sexual orientations.
And now in Cuba they are trying to get rid of the stereotypes about western people and they are more open towards homosexuals and religious people because they found out that it has nothing to do with betraying the revolution...
But the same opening is not always true on the other side...as the movie Good night and Good luck shows: some American people still consider being communist an accusation, something negative.
What really made me laugh was crosses and statues of Jesus everywhere in the flat of the homosexual guy as a symbol of capitalism...while singers such as Woody Guthrie (that I got to know on Friday during the show at the Berrie Center at Ramapo) would identify Jesus with ideas which are just the opposite.
And all this shows that also my stereotypes about American people were not quite right.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
I killed Berlusconi
Why Hamlet is the greatest play ever?
Because it talks about when we find out that the king is a killer, illegittimate and a liar, and feel really like behaving like him...in a very immoral way...and kill him straight away.
He speaks and speaks and convinces you that everything is true as well as its contrary. And he is building weapons and he tells the people that an enemy, who has been dispossesed by his land, is ready to get revenge and attack...but then it seems that it is not completely true.
And Rosencrantz and Guildenstern...even Tom Stoppard caught them speaking and speaking many years later...
Bla bla bla
Ble ble ble
How can you say that this is not true? It sounds so logical! How can you deny it!
But that poor Hamlet. Because of the ghost words he was caught in the spiral of rethorics and logics too and forgot about the most important thing: never do to someone else what you would not like them to do to you. Like Jesus and Confucius said. And like Chomsky said: do not forget to apply the same moral standards you apply to other people to yourself first.
So I have decided not to kill Berlusconi...wait I remember they did a movie called 'I've killed Berlusconi'...but I think it has been censored.
Because it talks about when we find out that the king is a killer, illegittimate and a liar, and feel really like behaving like him...in a very immoral way...and kill him straight away.
He speaks and speaks and convinces you that everything is true as well as its contrary. And he is building weapons and he tells the people that an enemy, who has been dispossesed by his land, is ready to get revenge and attack...but then it seems that it is not completely true.
And Rosencrantz and Guildenstern...even Tom Stoppard caught them speaking and speaking many years later...
Bla bla bla
Ble ble ble
How can you say that this is not true? It sounds so logical! How can you deny it!
But that poor Hamlet. Because of the ghost words he was caught in the spiral of rethorics and logics too and forgot about the most important thing: never do to someone else what you would not like them to do to you. Like Jesus and Confucius said. And like Chomsky said: do not forget to apply the same moral standards you apply to other people to yourself first.
So I have decided not to kill Berlusconi...wait I remember they did a movie called 'I've killed Berlusconi'...but I think it has been censored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
